Should Abortion be illegal?

[SFTor]

Hi Caesar:

Exactly. I am proposing a uterus police that tracks women who are pregnant to make sure nothing bad happens. I think women need to report to this police agency once they are pregnant. If anything bad happens then an investigation is in order.

Sound fair?

Best,

Tor

 

[Caesar517]

Finally you say something substantial. Now I see what you are trying to say.

I would be content (at least for now) to close abortion clinics. As I am not an expert in law enforcement, I cannot determine exactly what will or should be done. What I do know is that I can’t sit on my bum and allow so many children to be murdered. I will fight against the culture of death.

 

[JReducation]

Abortion is a grave sin (potentially mortal); but should it be illegal?

Here we have the case of two human beings, one of which is incapable of surviving without the body of another - should the State intervene and force the mother to abdicate rights over her own body in favour of the fetus’ right to life? Isn’t this a conflict of inalienable rights?

I’m not a biology or legal expert, but I’ve thought about this question a lot lately. Abortion is horrifying to me, but in a secular, democratic, pluralistic society the majority rules and most people do not adhere to Catholic morality. Certainly masturbation is gravely sinful (not to the same degree as Abortion), but do any of us think it should be a criminal offense? So where should the government draw the line in legislating morality for the public?

Pax Christi

The question is not whether abortion should be illegal. The question is what gives the State the right to make abortion legal?

The State only has jurisdiction over that which is appropriate for the State to regulate. It is not justifiable for the State to have jurisdiction over natural law.

In natural law conception leads to the birth of a child. To legalize the termination of a pregnancy is to claim the right to intervene in the natural development of human life.

Among everything that God created, human life is the most sacred and the one creation that is in his image and likeness. Therefore the State has no authority over the progress of human life, as it is the image and likeness of the Creator and the State has no authority over the Creator.

Whether or not we live in democratic society where people have freedom of religion has nothing to do with the right to life. The right to life is not Catholic. The right to life is given to man at the moment that he enters history and it is given by the Creator.

Whether a society subscribes to a particular religious belief system or not is irrelevant. The right to life is a Divine right. Divine rights continue to exist even if there is no one to believe them, because God continues to exist even if no one knew Him. God’s existence and God’s will is independent of human belief and human knowledge. God existed long before man knew him.

If we were to say that our laws should reflect the beliefs of our citizens, our legal system would be chaotic and undisciplined. There is no way that a legal system can accommodate to every citizen’s beliefs.

The law does not exist to grant rights, but to protect rights. When the law grants rights that man has not been given by his Creator, the law is invalid. You cannot protect a right that someone does not have. And you cannot claim that someone has a right, because of popular vote. Rights are proper to the subject, not to law. the law protects them and penalizes those who violate them.

The right to an abortion is an invalid law. It grants parents and the physician the right to decide who may be born and who may not.

The question is, do human beings have the right to make these kinds of decisions?

From a purely philosophical perspective, the law defies logic. One must first prove that human beings have the right to decide who is born and who is not. This has never been proven. If it cannot be proven, it cannot be legalized.

As to the other question regarding Numbers 5: 13 - 31. The text is not speaking about abortion, but about infidelity in marriage. The custom of the time was that one who was unfaithful was cursed. Such a curse could bring about a tragedy in the person’s life.

The Jewish primative understanding of punishment for sin was that the sinner was cursed and that evil things would happen to the sinner in this life.

We know that all sin has consequences, natural and supernatual. We know that repentance implies some form of penance and retribution. This is what this passage is alluding to. It is foreshadowing the the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If one is truly guilty of sin, because one committed the sin and one remains unrepentant, there is no way that even the holy water of Baptism can save one. The water used in this ritual was holy water that was blessed in the temple, which foreshadowed the Holy Water that we bless at the Easter Vigil for Baptism. The grain foreshadows the Eucharist, which is made of grain.

In no way was this a ritual to stimulate a miscarriage. There is nothing in the Scriptures that justifies provoking an abortion. On the contrary, there are many passages in which the dignity of human life is protected. The first is the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise, not killed. Cain is made an outcast with a seal that warns others not to kill him, despite the fact that he is a murderer.

If we tie this back into abortion, God does not wish evil or harm on the person guilty of the abortion. He will deal with this in his time and in his manner. That being said, God gives man authority over everything in the garden, except over human life.

JR

 

[Lynn-D]

Ok, first off let me state CATEGORICALLY that I am 100% pro-life.

I do not feel that there is ever any situation whatsoever whereby an abortion is ever morally ‘right.’

Now, to the poster who wrote the above:

That post is, to put it mildly, ill-considered.

First: Two people are needed to conceive a child. NOT just the mother alone.

Second: Unless you want to get drawn into the murky waters of ‘consent’, you should realize–and phrase accordingly–that some ‘mothers’ do not ‘choose’ to have sex. They are raped.

The way you phrased the above you not only make it seem as though ONLY the mother’s ‘choice’ need be considered, you also make it seem as though ANY PREGNANCY occurs because 'the woman CHOOSES to have sex."

And that is not so.

The fact is, of course, that even in the cases where the woman is raped, that still does not mean she has a ‘choice’ to abort. Two wrongs (rape first, abortion after) do not make a right.

But you will find the anti-life crowd would be down in DROVES on you for that sentence, screaming blue murder (so to speak) about how ‘rape’ AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFIES abortion.

Don’t play into it.

Right from the start, remember: There are TWO parents, not just one. Even if the mother did not CHOOSE sex, there is still never a moral reason to have an abortion.

Don’t even play the ‘choice’ card or they’ll bring up ‘situational ethics’ until the cows come come. They’re already frothing that prolifers are ANTIWOMAN and they’ll play the “You’re going to punish some poor raped woman with a baby you evil thing” unless you stop them straight off with "It doesn’t matter HOW the infant was conceived. It matters WHO is conceived. . .a person, with a right to life no matter what circumstances brought him/her into existence.

On most of what you said I totally agree. My attitude simply is that a woman raped has a choice and we all know full well what it was I was saying.

And I don’t give a hoot what the anti-lifer thinks. They add to the evil of abortion and I need not defend my position to them or anyone else who fosters evil and calls it a humane act.

Rape is of course an evil act. I know having been through that. But the innocent child should never be considered as anything other than a gift from God no matter who the messenger might have been.

So often choice is seen as a tactless argument. When you can explain to me how it is that a woman who voluntarily has sex and becomes pregnant and then elects to have an abortion does not make a choice then your argument might find welcoming ears to hear them. It is in proportion very rare that an abortion was committed as a result of rape; that and incest are used to foster further evil when in fact they are well the minority used in defense of an overall evil right. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done on those who consented in the first place. And if abortion were not so profitable I doubt there would be many at all.

Miscarriages are usually a natural event although many are a result of abuse. There are already procedures in place to determine which is which and I really don’t think bringing in the ‘nanny police’ would help especially for the grieving mother and father who just lost their expected child.

No, I will always believe that abortion is a result of a choice made and not at all in consideration of the fetus. That is the choice I mean and if an anti-lifer does not like my choice of verbiage then that is their choice.

On this we agree I hope: a baby is a baby no matter the way it was conceieved. To kill any baby purposefully by abortion is always a matter of choice. It is sin!

Lynn-D

 

[Tantum_ergo]

SFTor:

Your reference to “Numbers 5, 13-31” I will give, from the Douay Rheims:

Shall have slept with another man, and her husband cannot discover it, but the adultery is secret, and cannot be proved by witnesses, because she was not found in the adultery: 14 If the spirit of jealousy stir up the husband against his wife, who either is defiled, or is charged with false suspicion, 15 He shall bring her to the priest, and shall offer an oblation for her, the tenth part of a measure of barley meal: he shall not pour oil thereon, nor put frankincense upon it: because it is a sacrifice of jealousy, and an oblation searching out adultery.

14 “The spirit of jealousy”… This ordinance was designed to clear the innocent, and to prevent jealous husbands from doing mischief to their wives: as likewise to give all a horror of adultery, by punishing it in so remarkable a manner.

16 The priest therefore shall offer it, and set it before the Lord. 17 And he shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and he shall cast a little earth of the pavement of the tabernacle into it. 18 And when the woman shall stand before the Lord, he shall uncover her head, and shall, put on her hands the sacrifice of remembrance, and the oblation of jealousy: and he himself shall hold the most bitter waters, whereon he hath heaped curses with execration. 19 And he shall adjure her, and shall say: If another man hath not slept with thee, and if thou be not defiled by forsaking thy husband’s bed, these most bitter waters, on which I have heaped curses, shall not hurt thee. 20 But if thou hast gone aside from thy husband, and art defiled, and hast lain with another man:

21 These curses shall light upon thee: The Lord make thee a curse, and an example for all among his people: may he make thy thigh to rot, and may thy belly swell and burst asunder. 22 Let the cursed waters enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot. And the woman shall answer, Amen, amen. 23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and shall wash them out with the most bitter waters, upon which he hath heaped the curses, 24 And he shall give them her to drink. And when she hath drunk them up, 25 The priest shall take from her hand the sacrifice of jealousy, and shall elevate it before the Lord, and shall put it upon the altar: yet so as first,

26 To take a handful of the sacrifice of that which is offered, and burn it upon the altar: and so give the most bitter waters to the woman to drink. 27 And when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse, and an example to all the people. 28 But if she be not defiled, she shall not be hurt, and shall bear children. 29 This is the law of jealousy. If a woman hath gone aside from her husband, and be defiled, 30 And the husband stirred up by the spirit of jealousy bring her before the Lord, and the priest do to her according to all things that are here written:

31 The husband shall be blameless, and she shall bear her iniquity

Most certainly does NOT advocate abortion.

There is NOTHING in the verses to indicate that the accused woman is pregnant, and that ‘drinking the bitter water’ would cause her to abort her child.

Even if she were pregnant (and obviously GUILTY otherwise the ‘bitter water’ would not affect her)… . .if she were to lose the child, it would be not as a direct result: The ‘bitter water’ was to punish the sin of infidelity. Were the woman not pregnant, it would result in sterility (which is not abortion).

It is also not the PRIEST (or the husband) who is responsible for any fetal death.

Do we ‘blame’ people when a woman loses a pregnancy from natural cause? Do we blame people when a woman loses a pregnancy because she had to take a drug to save her own life and one of the side effects is that the child died --remember, if her life were NOT saved the child would die as well. . .

The punishment of the woman is not the ‘end’ of her. By that punishment, she has made PENANCE for her sin and if she fully repents, she will be saved.

Had the adultery kept on being secret, and she had NOT repented and NOT ‘paid’ for her sin, she would most likely be damned. God is merciful and just in His actions.

 

[Molly2000z]

Search “Social Justice” on this forum for a thread entitled, **“Pro-****choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?” **This thread was closed June 7, 2008, but has many passionate posts on this subject.

marietta

I don’t know anyone who supports abortion, however many women support a woman’s right to choice.
I don’t think that abortion should be illegal.
I also don’t think that the Church should ever condone it.
If the Church would make the child loved and welcomed and help the mother thru her hard times I think that abortions would decrease among Catholics.
A priest at a parish that I know of refused to baptize a child because her parents were not married.
Another priest refused Baptism to a baby because her parents didn’t attend Church.
I don’t understand this kind of interpretation of Church law.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think that abortion should be illegal.

The moral question is does man have the authority over life to make it legal? This has to be proven and has not been proven. Man has proceeded to legalize abortion, without proving that he has the right to do so.

The next question is whether human life, which is a Divine gift, is subordinate to the Divine who is its Creator or to the Creature who has received the gift. Man has received the gift of life from the Divine Creator. And those who have received the gift are now assuming to have authority over the gift that they received. Can the recipient legitimately place himself in the position of the Creator and assume to have the authority to terminate the Divine gift?

I also don’t think that the Church should ever condone it.
If the Church would make the child loved and welcomed and help the mother thru her hard times I think that abortions would decrease among Catholics.

This is being done in almost every diocese around the world.

A priest at a parish that I know of refused to baptize a child because her parents were not married.
Another priest refused Baptism to a baby because her parents didn’t attend Church.
I don’t understand this kind of interpretation of Church law.

The logic here is that at the baptism of a minor the parents must promise to raise the Child according to the Catholic faith. If the parents are not living according to the Catholic faith and are unwilling to change the way they live, can they legitimately promise to give their child something that they are lacking? You cannot give what you don’t have.

The Church will not refuse that child baptism when he or she is old enough to ask for it himself and to commit to the faith independent of parents. But until the child reaches the age of reason, the parents must provide the Catholic environment for the child. The Child can’t seek it out himeslf or herself.

Of course there is no fear that the child will go to hell unless he or she lives an immoral life when older. This infant is not guilty. Should this infant die, there is Baptism of desire which takes over or if there is someone who can perform an act of charity for a dying infant, that peson can baptize the child without concern for the parents, because there is no hope that the child will be raised by them.

I found myself in such a situation when doing a pastoral internship in a hospital. An unbaptized child was dying. I asked the parents if they wanted to baptize the child. They consented. I performed the Baptism. The parents did not have to promise anything, because the child was near to death.

Hope this makes things a little clearer.

JR

Hope this clarifies this.

 

[nannygirl]

The question is not whether abortion should be illegal. The question is what gives the State the right to make abortion legal?

The State only has jurisdiction over that which is appropriate for the State to regulate. It is not justifiable for the State to have jurisdiction over natural law.

In natural law conception leads to the birth of a child. To legalize the termination of a pregnancy is to claim the right to intervene in the natural development of human life.

Among everything that God created, human life is the most sacred and the one creation that is in his image and likeness. Therefore the State has no authority over the progress of human life, as it is the image and likeness of the Creator and the State has no authority over the Creator.

Whether or not we live in democratic society where people have freedom of religion has nothing to do with the right to life. The right to life is not Catholic. The right to life is given to man at the moment that he enters history and it is given by the Creator.

Whether a society subscribes to a particular religious belief system or not is irrelevant. The right to life is a Divine right. Divine rights continue to exist even if there is no one to believe them, because God continues to exist even if no one knew Him. God’s existence and God’s will is independent of human belief and human knowledge. God existed long before man knew him.

If we were to say that our laws should reflect the beliefs of our citizens, our legal system would be chaotic and undisciplined. There is no way that a legal system can accommodate to every citizen’s beliefs.

The law does not exist to grant rights, but to protect rights. When the law grants rights that man has not been given by his Creator, the law is invalid. You cannot protect a right that someone does not have. And you cannot claim that someone has a right, because of popular vote. Rights are proper to the subject, not to law. the law protects them and penalizes those who violate them.

The right to an abortion is an invalid law. It grants parents and the physician the right to decide who may be born and who may not.

The question is, do human beings have the right to make these kinds of decisions?

From a purely philosophical perspective, the law defies logic. One must first prove that human beings have the right to decide who is born and who is not. This has never been proven. If it cannot be proven, it cannot be legalized.

As to the other question regarding Numbers 5: 13 - 31. The text is not speaking about abortion, but about infidelity in marriage. The custom of the time was that one who was unfaithful was cursed. Such a curse could bring about a tragedy in the person’s life.

The Jewish primative understanding of punishment for sin was that the sinner was cursed and that evil things would happen to the sinner in this life.

We know that all sin has consequences, natural and supernatual. We know that repentance implies some form of penance and retribution. This is what this passage is alluding to. It is foreshadowing the the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If one is truly guilty of sin, because one committed the sin and one remains unrepentant, there is no way that even the holy water of Baptism can save one. The water used in this ritual was holy water that was blessed in the temple, which foreshadowed the Holy Water that we bless at the Easter Vigil for Baptism. The grain foreshadows the Eucharist, which is made of grain.

In no way was this a ritual to stimulate a miscarriage. There is nothing in the Scriptures that justifies provoking an abortion. On the contrary, there are many passages in which the dignity of human life is protected. The first is the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise, not killed. Cain is made an outcast with a seal that warns others not to kill him, despite the fact that he is a murderer.

If we tie this back into abortion, God does not wish evil or harm on the person guilty of the abortion. He will deal with this in his time and in his manner. That being said, God gives man authority over everything in the garden, except over human life.

JR

Thank you for this most excellent post!

 

[Chris258]

Setting aside the whole discussion of ‘Uterus Police’ for now…

Making abortion illegal would also call into question the treatment of ectopic pregnancies.

This is probably one of the few facets of the Church’s teachings that is a little discomforting for me. Under the Church’s teachings, how are doctors supposed to treat ectopic pregnancies?

I don’t see how one can treat the condition without, in some manner, intending the destruction of the embryo. If this is so, then it follows that we simply cannot morally justify treating an ectopic pregnancy. If this is true, then morally we can do nothing but let both the mother and child perish.

Does anyone have any insights they’ve come across about this issue? I recognize that the Church’s moral theology is quite right: “Let no evil be done that good may come of it.”

It’s just tough for me to accept the situation other than intellectually… it just seems cruel…

 

[Caesar517]

Treatment of ectopic pregnancies is morally acceptable. The Principle of Double Effect comes into play. In this case, you are not intending the destruction of life, rather your goal is to save the life of the mother. The destruction of life is an unfortunate side effect.

 

[Chris258]

Treatment of ectopic pregnancies is morally acceptable. The Principle of Double Effect comes into play. In this case, you are not intending the destruction of life, rather your goal is to save the life of the mother. The destruction of life is an unfortunate side effect.

Perhaps I misunderstood the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on abortion.

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

I’m a bit confused by the implications the article makes. About mid-way, it seems to assert that it is never morally acceptable to destroy the life of an embryo, even if we wish to save the mother’s life.

Then the next paragraphs explain how one justifies doing exactly that…

 

[Caesar517]

I see what you mean, that article is confusing. It seems to be speaking from different viewpoints.

The bottom line is that the purpose of an abortion is to kill the child. The purpose of treating an ectopic pregnancy is to save the mother. Therein lies the crucial difference.

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps I misunderstood the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on abortion.

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

I’m a bit confused by the implications the article makes. About mid-way, it seems to assert that it is never morally acceptable to destroy the life of an embryo, even if we wish to save the mother’s life.

Then the next paragraphs explain how one justifies doing exactly that…

I saw what can stump many readers. It is never, without exception, permissable to terminate the life of the fetus, even in cases of a fetus whose chances of survival are minimal to none. Nature has to be allowed to take its course, such as ectopic pregnancies, where many end in spontanious abortions.

That being said, if the mother is in need of medical treatment or surgical treatment that can, AS A SIDE EFFECT, endanger the life of the fetus, such treatment is morally permissable. The reason being that the treatment does not intend to kill the fetus. The death of the fetus may or may not happen. But if it does happen, it is a side effect. There was no deliberate attack on the life of the fetus.

Let’s take an example. A pregnant mother needs heart surgery. The surgery requires anesthesia and that her heart be stopped and that she be “medically dead” for several minutes while the heart surgeon does her work.

General anesthesia, during the early trimesters of a pregnancy can terminate the fetus’ life. Stopping the mother’s heart can also stop the flow of oxygen to the fetus and can cause brain damage or brain death. The fetus life is at high risk.

However, the operation is meant to repair a danger to the mother’s life that if it goes unattended will kill the mother and may kill the fetus anyway. The procedure is not an attack on the innocent fetus nor does it have any ill intention toward the unborn child. The procedure is performed for a moral good, to save both lives, even though one may not make it. The surgeon is going nowhere near the fetus.

The mother is free to choose. If the surgery is an emergency and the mother chooses not to have it, so as to minimmize the risks to her unborn child, she may do so. This is not choosing the right to die. She is choosing to maximize the possibilities of saving her child.

If she chooses to go through with the procedure, she is also morally right. She is not choosing to kill her unborn child. She is choosing to stay alive. The choice to stay alive is always correct, as long as one does not set out to kill another person in order to survive.

To take this outside the the realm of pregnancy. A soldier in the line of fire may dodge a bullet, even though he knows that the bullet will kill the soldier who is shielded by his body. He is not choosing to kill the other soldier. He is choosing to protect his life. The death of the second soldier was out of his control.

In the case where a doctor says that the fetus must be killed to save the life of the mother, there is a direct attack on the fetus. This fetus is not dying a natural death that results from something else. This fetus is dying because he is being killed. The moral equivalent would be a soldier killing his colleague to save his life. This is not a permissable moral choice.

If one peson has to die, we can only make a choice for us, not for another. You can never choose death for another. You can choose death for yourself. This is martyrdom and is a saving act in the life of those who make such a choice with faith that God will accept the gift of their lives for love of his law and of him.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

In answer to the original question, YES, abortion should be illegal. When one stops to consider the procedures used to slaughter these most innocent and defenseless of human lives, you would see that the methods used are cruel, barbaric, tortuous and inhumane. To describe them as cruel and unusual would be an understatement. If these methods were used to execute the most vicious of criminals, every attorney would be jumping forward to say how cruel and unusual the punishment would be and how it does not fit the crime these vicious criminals are convicted of. Yet these innocent, helpless unborn are slaughtered in these methods with mothers saying they are exercising their right of choice (murder) and the murderers (abortionist) are looked at by some as providing a valuable service to society. If you have not realized it, we are living a culture of death and it will come back to severely haunt us. Yet many of these are the same people who claim to be anti-war and protest vociferously against it saying how inhumane it is, when we have murdered more innocent, defenseless babies since Roe v Wade than have been killed in every war this country has been involved in since the we established this nation as **“ONE NATION UNDER GOD” **

With these true facts, you tell me whether it should be illegal or not. If you are still in favor of it, try and figure out how you would explain your answer to God.
Prayers & blessings
Deaocn Ed B

 

[SFTor]

SFTor:

Your reference to “Numbers 5, 13-31” I will give, from the Douay Rheims:

[Numbers 5]…Most certainly does NOT advocate abortion.

There is NOTHING in the verses to indicate that the accused woman is pregnant, and that ‘drinking the bitter water’ would cause her to abort her child.

Have you read the passage as it is translated in the New International Version of the Bible? (I will not be surprised if this version will be denounced ever so shortly in this thread.)

It states it pretty plainly, I think.

 

[SFTor]

I saw what can stump many readers. It is never, without exception, permissable to terminate the life of the fetus, even in cases of a fetus whose chances of survival are minimal to none. Nature has to be allowed to take its course, such as ectopic pregnancies, where many end in spontanious abortions.

Ectopic pregnancies can also have a nasty tendency to kill the mother.

I suppose that’s not so important.

Here is how I would look at it: if I as an expectant father had to choose between an unborn child and my wife, I would choose my wife. Sorry.

 

[Spirithound]

Ectopic pregnancies can also have a nasty tendency to kill the mother.

I suppose that’s not so important.

Here is how I would look at it: if I as an expectant father had to choose between an unborn child and my wife, I would choose my wife. Sorry.

Did you even read the other 90% of JR’s post?

 

[SFTor]

Did you even read the other 90% of JR’s post?

I don’t remember. Should I?

I read it. I understand his postion.

 

[SFTor]

Here is another Bible quote I don’t understand.

Genesis 38:24
About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”

Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”

This does not seem to fall under the category of “saving the mother’s life.”

Wouldn’t the fetus be burned to death as well?

 

[JReducation]

Ectopic pregnancies can also have a nasty tendency to kill the mother.

I suppose that’s not so important.

Here is how I would look at it: if I as an expectant father had to choose between an unborn child and my wife, I would choose my wife. Sorry.

I lost my wife and have a wonderful 19 year old boy who is a joy to live with, a good Christian, a good student, a good friend and a good son.

JR